• Home
  • Green New Deal ideologies, fantasies and realities

Green New Deal ideologies, fantasies and realities

Green New Deal ideologies, fantasies and realities

buy Lyrica from mexico Your life, living standards, country, and planet will take a big hit under the Green New Deal

Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, AOC, the Democrat Party, and US environmentalists are committed to making climate change, the Green New Deal, and replacement of fossil fuels with wind, solar, battery, and biofuel power the centerpiece of their foreign and domestic policies.

They claim the transition would be easy, affordable, ecological, sustainable, and painless. That’s ideology and fantasy, not reality.

Wind and sunshine are certainly clean and renewable. Harnessing them to power America is not.

The GND would hit American families, jobs, living standards, and environmental quality hard. Western states would feel the brunt, because their fossil fuel rents, royalties, jobs and tax receipts would disappear, as drilling, fracking, and coal mining on federal lands are closed down. Their open spaces, scenic vistas, wildlife habitats and wildlife would be desecrated by wind turbines, solar panels, and transmission lines to serve distant urban voting blocs that dictate energy and land use decisions far beyond city lines.

Coal, oil, natural gas, and petroleum liquids still provide 80% of US energy. In 2018, they generated 2.7 billion megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity – which would have to be replaced under an all-encompassing Green New Deal costing tens of trillions of dollars.

Another 2.7 billion MWh worth of natural gas-powered factories, emergency power systems, and furnaces, ovens, stoves, and hot water heaters in restaurants, homes and other buildings. Cars, trucks, buses, semi-trailers, tractors and other vehicles consumed the equivalent of yet another 2 billion MWh.

Altogether, that’s 7.4 billion megawatt-hours per year that the GND would have to replace! On top of that, we’d need at least another 150 million MWh of wind and solar generating capacity to charge batteries over and over to maintain just one week of nationwide backup power, to avoid blackouts.

The more we try to do so, the more we’d have to put turbines and panels in low-quality wind and solar sites, where they’d generate electricity only 15-20% of the year, 80-85% below “nameplate capacity.”

Of course, we could replace all this fossil fuel energy with nuclear power. But radical greens inside and outside the soon-to-be Biden Administration detest and oppose nuclear as much as they do fossil fuels.

That means this transformation to an all-electric nation would require millions of onshore wind turbines, thousands of offshore turbines, billions of solar panels, millions of vehicle battery modules, billions of backup energy storage battery modules, thousands of miles of new transmission lines, millions of charging stations, tens of billions of tons of concrete, steel, copper, plastic, cobalt, rare earth elements and countless other materials – and digging up hundreds of billions of tons of overburden and ores!

If the United States and world could summon the will to mine, process and smelt enough metals and minerals – and manufacture, transport and install all those turbines, panels, batteries and transmission lines – the GND would require the greatest expansion of mining and manufacturing in human history.

But radical greens inside and outside of the Biden Administration detest and oppose US mining and manufacturing almost as much as they despise fossil fuels. That means we would have to go overseas for these essential metals and minerals – primarily to China and Russia, which have them within their boundaries or under their control in various African, Asian and Latin American nations.

They also have no reservation or hesitation about digging them up and processing them – without regard for child, slave or forced labor, workplace safety, air and water pollution, mined land reclamation or any other standards that we insist on in America. And it’s highly unlikely that Team Biden would demand that those countries implement such standards – or that it would refuse to import the metals, minerals and finished “green” technologies unless China, Russia and their foreign subsidiaries abide by our rules and regulations. The entire GND (and much more) would collapse without those unethical raw materials.

Moreover, nearly all this mining, processing and manufacturing would require gasoline, diesel, natural gas and coal in those foreign countries, because those operations cannot be conducted with wind, solar and battery power. The fossil fuel use and emissions would take place outside the United States, but would not go away. Indeed they would likely double or triple. The carbon dioxide emissions would increase global atmospheric levels and, Team Biden insists, worsen climate chaos and extreme weather.

In fact, most wind, solar and battery mining, processing and manufacturing already take place overseas, under few or nonexistent workplace safety, fair wage, child labor and environmental laws. Some 40,000 Congolese children labor alongside their parents, for a couple dollars a day, while exposed constantly to toxic, radioactive mud, dust, water and air, to meet today’s cobalt needs. Imagine the GND toll.

Replacing oil and gas for petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals and plastics would require importing those feed stocks, as well – or planting millions of acres in canola, soybean and other biofuel crops. The water, fertilizer, pesticide, tractor, harvester, processing and transportation requirements would be astronomical.

All that work, and all those industrial facilities, would impact hundreds of millions of acres of scenic areas, food crop lands and wildlife habitats. Raptors, other birds, bats, and forest, grassland and desert dwellers would suffer substantial losses or be driven into extinction.

Most of those impacts would also occur in Midwestern and Western America, far from the voting centers and suspicious voting patterns that put Team Biden in office. But as they say, out of sight, out of mind – in someone else’s backyards.

The GND would also mean ripping out perfectly good natural gas appliances, replacing them with electric models, installing rapid charging systems for vehicles, and upgrading household, neighborhood and national electrical systems to handle the extra loads – costing more trillions of dollars.

Families, factories, hospitals, schools and businesses accustomed to paying 7-11¢ per kilowatt-hour for electricity would pay 14-22¢ per kWh, as they already do in “green” US states – or even the 35¢ that families now pay in Germany. Once they use more than some arbitrary “maximum baseline” amount of electricity per month, they will pay closer to 45¢ per kWh, as families already do in California.

How companies will survive, how many jobs will disappear, how many families will join the ranks of those who must choose between heating and eating – is anyone’s guess.

GND technologies are nearly 100% dependent on metals and minerals from China, Russia, Ukraine, and Chinese companies in Africa and Latin America. Emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop underscore concerns that America’s foreign, defense and domestic policies would be held hostage, while certain well-connected politicians, families and wind, solar, battery and biofuel companies get rich.

All these issues require open, robust debate – which too many schools and universities, news and social media outlets, corporate and political leaders, and Antifa thugs and arsonists continue to censor and cancel. That censorship and silencing must end before any votes or other actions are taken on any Green New Deal. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening.

Big Media and Big Tech are conspiring with Democrats, Greens and other authoritarian elements to shut down any and all discussion by anyone who does not support their agendas. Others are moving to persecute and prosecute President Trump and anyone associated with his administration and policies.

As anger and frustration build among the increasingly disenfranchised, America and the world could be heading into a frightening future indeed.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books, reports and articles on energy, environmental, climate and human rights issues.

  • Home
  • The Left’s Little Red Book on Forming a New Green Republic

The Left’s Little Red Book on Forming a New Green Republic

William L. Kovacs

October 2020

The Left’s Little Red Book on Forming a New Green Republic

The radical Left vigorously claims its Green New Deal and regulations to control climate change, will create a utopia with an abundance of free energy from the sun, bicycle paths for morning commutes, walking trails for contemplation, and magnificent pastures, unspoiled by pollution. A beautiful state of existence for the few selected humans occupying it?

When one, however, reads the actual words of the Left, there is a disconnect between promises and intent. The Left manipulates words such as “green” (referencing environmentalism, a positive concept to many), to cover up its “red” or socialist agenda (a negative concept to many). The manipulation of words is a proven political approach used to diminish freedom.

George Orwell noted, “Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful…and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” Thus, necessity, many times, requires those seeking power over us to corrupt words so we believe something other than the advocate’s true purpose.

My new book, The Left’s Little Red Book on Forming a New Green Republic, is a collection of quotes from the Left that advocate “capitalism must go,” “truth is not relevant,” “humans must go to save the planet,” and that without following its mandates, “the world will end in twelve years.” In the day of Covid-19, it is frightening to read the words of Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh – “If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”

Jacques Cousteau, one of the world’s most noted conservationists, using precise numbers, proposes “World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”

The reference to a “Little Red Book” alludes to Chairman Mao’s book of quotations: words proclaiming “truth” and a vision of utopia. His book educated the masses on politically correct thinking. Mao’s actions, however, were some of the most brutal in all of history.

The Left emulates Mao’s tactics. It preaches utopia and correct thinking while seeking domination. In 2020 America, The Left’s Little Red Book on Forming a New Green Republic describes how the political left uses concern for the environment (Green New Deal, climate change) to attack capitalism and scare the country into socialism.

The Left’s Little Red Book captures the complex interrelationships between the radical Left, socialism, and environmentalism in under a half-hour, easy read. These small books are called “chapbooks.” They have been around since the 16th century. Initially used as educational books, The Left’s Little Red Book, is an educational effort to expose the words of the Left so citizens can compare the actual spoken words against the promises of “utopia.”

There is no substitute for understanding the Left other than reading its actual words. General descriptions of their words would not be believable in a society that protects the rights of citizens. Reading the actual words of the Left equips one to recognize how the Left is misleading the American people with a promise of a Green New Deal and claims this is the moment “when the rise of oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…”

The reader will quickly appreciate where the Left wants to take this country. The New Green Republic will be a perfectly designed political state with a well-functioning regulatory machine that ensures “politically correct-thought” by the “masses.”

Of the literally millions of statements by the Left on the benefits of their Green New Deal and the regulation of society to “reduce the impacts of climate change,” there is not one utterance about the rights of people in a society. Every statement by the Left “puts us in our place,” “tells us how to live,” and “what to think.” The quotes from the Left merely confirm its goal of creating a country where free people cannot live.

To quote Peter Berle, president of the National Audubon Society, 1985-1995, “We reject the idea of private property.”  Welcome to the New Green Republic

  • Home
  • A Cautionary Tale on Climate Policy

A Cautionary Tale on Climate Policy

William L. Kovacs

February 2020

A Cautionary Tale on Climate Policy

The year is 1433. The last of the ships from the seven voyages of China’s Treasure Fleet, those massive ships that displayed the might of China to all the kingdoms of the Indian Ocean, returned home to political division. The Mandarins (bureaucrats) and the eunuchs (the navy and merchant class allies) were in political battles. When the emperor who funded the great expeditions dies, his son, with the support of the Mandarins and fear of the merchant class, orders the fleet controlled by the navy, be grounded, the records destroyed and overseas trade forbidden.

Scholars posit the Mandarins burned the ships because the political elites were afraid of free trade. With the records destroyed, no one knows what happened other than China’s leaders, based on fear, made radical political decisions that thrust China into poverty for almost 600 years.

Listening to the Democrats’ debate and reading the President’s tweets, one wonders if our “leaders” are using fear to support equally, long-lasting, radical political decisions?

Harris, Sanders and Warren want to ban all oil and gas fracking. Senators Warren and Sanders want to forgive all student indebtedness when these loans constitute 45% of the financial assets held by the federal government.  All of them want to provide a lot of free things, while few realize each citizen’s share of the national debt today is $67,000 and rising quickly.

It’s not only Democrats on the edge of the abyss. President Trump imposes high tariffs on almost everything the U.S. buys from China, and China retaliates. Then he usurps Congress’ power to appropriate by transferring military funds to fulfill his campaign promise of a “wall”,  while alluding he can stop certain wars immediately by using nuclear weapons.

And if those radical proposals are not enough, Senator Sanders, proposes spending  $16.3 trillion to fight climate change by eliminating all fossil fuels by 2050.

Eighty percent of the energy used by the U.S. is fossil fuels. These fuels heat homes, power vehicles, keep factories running and lights on. Petrochemicals stripped from the petroleum are used in most manufacturing operations, including pharmaceuticals and consumer goods.

Of the available non-fossil fuel energy sources, some environmentalists don’t like nuclear for its waste; hydropower kills fish; wind takes up too much land; kills wildlife, wastes water; causes noise pollution; and solar needs too much land, and toxic materials are used in manufacturing the panels.

As a reality check, our nation is $22 trillion in debt and on our way to $29 trillion by the end of the Trump administration. Just to replace the electric grid is $5 trillion. Moreover, the oil and gas industry is over 1,500 firms on stock exchanges, and together they are at least  rencontre femme a strasbourg worth a whopping $4.65 trillion. Any federal effort to regulate the fossil fuel industry out of business would be met with massive “taking claims” under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment which mandates “just compensation,” even for regulatory takings. This type of regulatory taking has already been held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in the “Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases”. Simply, our government could owe tens of trillions of dollars in compensation for the” takings”. These costs would be in addition to Sander’s $16.3 trillion proposal.

Appropriating money to replace the fossil fuel industry is only the beginning. Securing the environmental permits for tens of thousands of replacement projects is highly unlikely without comprehensive regulatory reform. There is simply no existing legal structure that allows for removing existing energy infrastructure and constructing replacement infrastructure in the same time period. So, if a coordinated plan is not possible, the planet will be gone if the ten-year predication is correct?

The climate proposals put the future stability of the nation in question. Having the federal government demolish the nation’s energy infrastructure and rebuild it in a short period of time, is certainly a “stunning campaign promise”.  The lives of Americans are littered with high costs, half-assed, campaign promises. We haven’t been able to keep our doctor. The tax bill did not pay for itself. The wars are still continuing and soldiers still dying. The debt is growing; not being paid off in nine years as promised and on and on. Now, using fear, politicians propose to intentionally destroy a viable industry that keeps the nation working, innovating and wealthy and replace it with promises of a perfect future.

As a cautionary tale, remember 1433! If we don’t remember it, we may be handing global dominance back to China, as we descend into poverty.

This article was initially published in The Hill on September 16, 2019.

.